The term “integrated” implies that separate facilities for black and white people were simply combined, without acknowledging the systemic racism and discrimination that necessitated segregation in the first place. By framing the situation as an issue of integration rather than addressing the root causes of segregation and inequality, it minimizes the harm and oppression that black people faced and continues to face.
This white washing of history and reality serves to downplay the struggles and experiences of black people, making it seem like their fight for equality and civil rights was simply a matter of integration rather than a battle against deep-seated racism and prejudice. It overlooks the violence, discrimination, and resistance that black individuals and communities had to face in order to gain equal access to basic rights and amenities.
Furthermore, the term “integration” can also imply a form of assimilation, where black individuals are pressured to conform to white norms and standards in order to be accepted. This erases the distinct cultural identities and lived experiences of black people, and reinforces a hierarchy where whiteness is the default and superior norm.
In conclusion, the use of the word “integrated” in regards to black people being allowed to use the same facilities as white people is a form of white washing that minimizes the struggles and experiences of black individuals, perpetuates a narrative of assimilation, and fails to address the systemic racism and oppression that continue to impact black communities today. It is important to recognize and challenge this kind of language in order to promote a more accurate and inclusive understanding of history and social justice.
edit: I guess y’all aren’t a fan of critical race theory. A little too woke for Lemmy.
You’ve lost me on this one. In this case, “integrated” is used because it is the antonym of “segregated”. It doesn’t erase the history of segregation, it repudiates segregation in a way that simpler (and perhaps newer & more popular) terms like “mixed” or “diverse” do not.
the term “integration” can also imply a form of assimilation, where black individuals are pressured to conform to white norms
I do agree with that. If one were to use “integrated” in the wrong context, it could imply the old colonial idea of cultural assimilation. In this specific context, though – as a refutation of “segregated” – there’s no risk of invoking the wrong connotation.
I fail to see how changing it to “racially diverse” fixes any of these issues. In fact, it’s impossible to define “integration” in this context without bringing up segregation and the systemic racism that wrought it, I’d argue your phrasing is much more euphemistic.
No, words have meaning derived from context. No one in their right mind thinks “integration” sounds benign as you suggest.
If you don’t understand the historic connotations of any word you could make the same mistake you do above. For instance why pick on “integrated” when you have no qualms about “segregated”? Your logic could apply there too:
The term “segregated” implies that separate facilities for black and white people simply existed equally, without acknowledging the systemic racism, inequality, discrimination, and violence that this system was part of in the first place.
The use of “integrated” here provides specific historical context.
deleted by creator
While it may, it is white washed history.
The term “integrated” implies that separate facilities for black and white people were simply combined, without acknowledging the systemic racism and discrimination that necessitated segregation in the first place. By framing the situation as an issue of integration rather than addressing the root causes of segregation and inequality, it minimizes the harm and oppression that black people faced and continues to face.
This white washing of history and reality serves to downplay the struggles and experiences of black people, making it seem like their fight for equality and civil rights was simply a matter of integration rather than a battle against deep-seated racism and prejudice. It overlooks the violence, discrimination, and resistance that black individuals and communities had to face in order to gain equal access to basic rights and amenities.
Furthermore, the term “integration” can also imply a form of assimilation, where black individuals are pressured to conform to white norms and standards in order to be accepted. This erases the distinct cultural identities and lived experiences of black people, and reinforces a hierarchy where whiteness is the default and superior norm.
In conclusion, the use of the word “integrated” in regards to black people being allowed to use the same facilities as white people is a form of white washing that minimizes the struggles and experiences of black individuals, perpetuates a narrative of assimilation, and fails to address the systemic racism and oppression that continue to impact black communities today. It is important to recognize and challenge this kind of language in order to promote a more accurate and inclusive understanding of history and social justice.
edit: I guess y’all aren’t a fan of critical race theory. A little too woke for Lemmy.
Fucking what
Is that Chatgpt?
You’ve lost me on this one. In this case, “integrated” is used because it is the antonym of “segregated”. It doesn’t erase the history of segregation, it repudiates segregation in a way that simpler (and perhaps newer & more popular) terms like “mixed” or “diverse” do not.
I do agree with that. If one were to use “integrated” in the wrong context, it could imply the old colonial idea of cultural assimilation. In this specific context, though – as a refutation of “segregated” – there’s no risk of invoking the wrong connotation.
I fail to see how changing it to “racially diverse” fixes any of these issues. In fact, it’s impossible to define “integration” in this context without bringing up segregation and the systemic racism that wrought it, I’d argue your phrasing is much more euphemistic.
You’re overdoing it. It’s not helping.
No.
@AncientFutureNow
No, words have meaning derived from context. No one in their right mind thinks “integration” sounds benign as you suggest.
If you don’t understand the historic connotations of any word you could make the same mistake you do above. For instance why pick on “integrated” when you have no qualms about “segregated”? Your logic could apply there too: